The big question is: Did certainÂ privilegedÂ customers receive information about the Facebook offering that you as an individual investor might not have?

Rick Ketchum, head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an independent regulatory body, acknowledged inÂ an article from Reuters that a Morgan Stanley analyst reduced his revenue projections for Facebook shortly beforeÂ the offeringÂ and shared the information with institutional investors.

And now Facebook shareholders have filed a lawsuit against the social network, CEO Mark Zuckerberg and a number of banks, alleging that crucial information was concealed ahead of Facebook's IPO. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Wednesday morning, charges the defendants with failing to disclose in the critical days leading up to Friday's initial public offering "a severe and pronounced reduction."

Facebook Â defended themselves on Wednesday saying they "believe the lawsuit is without merit and will defend ourselves vigorously."

The report, and now the lawsuit, raises questions about whether Morgan Stanley, one of the underwriter companies that handled Facebook's IPO, or other banks knowingly offered certain investors privileged information that should have been made public.Â Other underwriters targeted by the lawsuit include Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America.

It is possible that Morgan Stanley may have signed off on a price that was too high or agreed to sell too many shares in the deal, CNNMoney.com reports. Then, Morgan Stanley analysts are alleged to have told certain people they had a negative assessment of the social network's offering.

"If true, the allegations are a matter of regulatory concern to FINRA and the [Securities and Exchange Commission]," Ketchum said in a statement via a spokeswoman.

The New York Times reportedÂ Morgan Stanley did more than just quietly share a negative outlook; they actually "held conference calls to update their banks' analysts on business."

"Analysts atÂ Morgan StanleyÂ and other firms soon started advising clients to dial back their expectations," the article says. "One prospective buyer was told that second-quarter revenue could be 5 percent lower than the bankâ€™s earlier estimates."

Sallie Krawcheck, Bank of America's former head of wealth management, took to Twitter to share her outrage about the allegations.

The trader said he didn't receive a report of how many shares he bought and how much he paid for them until three hours after his order was executed. Typically, that report is transmitted instantaneously, he said.

â€śThey are holding my money hostage,â€ť saidÂ Sam Lesser,Â who had put in aÂ $10,000 Facebook order from money he made in a small business he created. "Itâ€™s really disappointing, because we could have made money on this."

To prevent a repeat of Facebook's botched opening, Nasdaq has changed its process to no longer accept order modifications once the final calculation has begun.

Stock disappointing many - unless you're a flipper

If you bought Facebook hoping it would be a steady earner in the early days, you were certainly out of luck.

While the Facebook IPO wasÂ one of the most highly anticipated IPOs in recent memory, setting a record for first-day trading volume, it's also been quite aÂ disappointmentÂ so far.

The stock is still down about 15 and has yet to post a truly positive trading session. On Friday the stock had a minute gain, but other than that, it hasn't done much to impress early investors.

"It's a day trader's paradise right now," Douglas DePietro, managing director for sales trading and trading execution at Evercore Partners, told CNNMoney.com. "There's high volatility and high volume."

Attention! There's a REASON why it's called speculation. Anyone who wasn't absolutely certain that this stock would immediately drop in value should not be buying stock at all! This is a company whose only recent market increases have been in assurances and hype! The problem ISN'T that the big holders were alerted ahead of time. The problem is that we have allowed trades to occur anywhere, through other mechanisms besides the wild capitalism of the pit floor! The problem is that there is no separation between banks and brokers! The one thing that needed to change BACK, and it didn't happen. Angry about the 1% who did know? You shouldn't be. It wouldn't happen if you weren't paid off or stupid.

When foxes guard the hen house the hens get eaten. And the worst part is it is Wall Street that ultimately controls most of our retirement assets, so we are the hens fattening the foxes and their guard(ian)s.

Honestly, integrity and fair play are aliens on Wall Street. But don't expect the government to do anything meaningful about it, and the financial circus will go on.

About This Blog

This blog â€“ This Just In â€“ will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.